I was all set up to be outraged, but it's Palahniuk doing a graphic novel sequel. Not a studio doing a sequel to the film without the the author or caring about the original. So it seems legit. Or at least not outrage inducing.

It's not like the ending to the the first book (or movie) left everything all wrapped up in a nice bow. The story begs to be continued, and I'll bet Palahniuk knew he'd eventually want to finish telling the story.

Babwa Wawa:It's not like the ending to the the first book (or movie) left everything all wrapped up in a nice bow. The story begs to be continued, and I'll bet Palahniuk knew he'd eventually want to finish telling the story.

The real question is, is he doing the book ending or the movie ending? Both are great in their own ways, but they are pretty different, so it would be interesting to see how it goes.

/Also was dismissive until I read it was Palahniuk writing it and not a studio cash grab.//Unlike the farking horrible game they made 4 years after the movie.

Shostie:Mugato: I'm a big fan of Fight Club (the movie more than the book)

In my opinion, it's one of the few times that a movie is as good as, if not slightly better, than the book it was based on.

I felt that way about Stardust. I love the movie (which I saw first) and then read the book. The book was just a little too dark and dreary for me. I liked the "Princess Bride/ Midnight Run" feel they went with for the film version. And I really loved the Coraline adaptation as well.

Richard_The_Clown:Shostie: Mugato: I'm a big fan of Fight Club (the movie more than the book)

In my opinion, it's one of the few times that a movie is as good as, if not slightly better, than the book it was based on.

I felt that way about Stardust. I love the movie (which I saw first) and then read the book. The book was just a little too dark and dreary for me. I liked the "Princess Bride/ Midnight Run" feel they went with for the film version. And I really loved the Coraline adaptation as well.

Cyno01:Richard_The_Clown: Shostie: Mugato: I'm a big fan of Fight Club (the movie more than the book)

In my opinion, it's one of the few times that a movie is as good as, if not slightly better, than the book it was based on.

I felt that way about Stardust. I love the movie (which I saw first) and then read the book. The book was just a little too dark and dreary for me. I liked the "Princess Bride/ Midnight Run" feel they went with for the film version. And I really loved the Coraline adaptation as well.

I remember I got a greenlight out of posting the trailer on Fark back in the day. Neil Gaiman's story with Ian McKellen (voiceover), Peter O'Toole, Robert DeNiro, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer, an early Henry Cavill and Ricky Gervais is an impressive lineup. Not quite on the same level as Princess Bride, but something I happily watch maybe every couple of years.

"Tyler is telling the story, lurking inside Jack, and ready to launch a comeback. Jack is oblivious. Marla is bored... Their marriage has run aground on the rocky coastline of middle-aged suburban boredom."

Gee, Chuck, it sounds like you might've run aground on the rocky coastline of middle-aged suburban boredom yourself.

Subby, it is fine when the kreator of a work of art makes a decision on said piece of art. Given that it wasn't a studio decision or a publisher decision, I am of the opnion that the author wishes to do more with the world and concepts that he created.

Have a ball being a whiny biatch. Try coming up with the next "Fight Club" yourself rather than cry about the person who inspired your entire adolescent outlook on life wanting to expand on the story that he created.

DeArmondVI:Subby, it is fine when the kreator of a work of art makes a decision on said piece of art. Given that it wasn't a studio decision or a publisher decision, I am of the opnion that the author wishes to do more with the world and concepts that he created.

Have a ball being a whiny biatch. Try coming up with the next "Fight Club" yourself rather than cry about the person who inspired your entire adolescent outlook on life wanting to expand on the story that he created.

...you know what? Go for it, Chuck. This sounds interesting, even though 1) I'm not sure which ending you're going to use and 2) I don't really see Jack and Marla getting together. In either ending, I don't see marriage being any real part to it. The open ending to the movie (what happens now?) doesn't really veer towards 'normal life with kids and a picket fence' territory for me.

wiredroach:DeArmondVI: Subby, it is fine when the kreator of a work of art makes a decision on said piece of art. Given that it wasn't a studio decision or a publisher decision, I am of the opnion that the author wishes to do more with the world and concepts that he created.

Have a ball being a whiny biatch. Try coming up with the next "Fight Club" yourself rather than cry about the person who inspired your entire adolescent outlook on life wanting to expand on the story that he created.

Wah farkin wah, subs

The Star Wars prequels. You lose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Chuck capitalize as much as George did on merchandise and licensing rights (or even attempt to)? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Chuck is an author (by profession) and George is a filmaker. Gee, I wonder if there could be any difference between those two outlooks on art...

Hint: one has only cared about money while the other knows he has enough money to make whatever choices he wants to make as an artist.

Ever read Snuff or Haunted? Would George Lucas ever have written those?

DeArmondVI:wiredroach: DeArmondVI: Subby, it is fine when the kreator of a work of art makes a decision on said piece of art. Given that it wasn't a studio decision or a publisher decision, I am of the opnion that the author wishes to do more with the world and concepts that he created.

Have a ball being a whiny biatch. Try coming up with the next "Fight Club" yourself rather than cry about the person who inspired your entire adolescent outlook on life wanting to expand on the story that he created.

Wah farkin wah, subs

The Star Wars prequels. You lose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Chuck capitalize as much as George did on merchandise and licensing rights (or even attempt to)? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Chuck is an author (by profession) and George is a filmaker. Gee, I wonder if there could be any difference between those two outlooks on art...

Hint: one has only cared about money while the other knows he has enough money to make whatever choices he wants to make as an artist.

Ever read Snuff or Haunted? Would George Lucas ever have written those?

Lucas didn't always care about money. THX-1138 sure wasn't a blockbuster and wasn't intended to be, and American Graffiti was his love letter to his youth. It was a hit against all odds. Even Star Wars was a good bet to be a flop. But for a lot of artists, there comes a time when it's time to just let go.

And I'm not sure why you think filmmakers are all moneygrubbers and authors are unsullied by the allure of cash. Plenty of writers have crapped out garbage to make a buck.

wiredroach:DeArmondVI: Actually, the book was so much better than the movie that it took a second movie to actually cover what was in the book.

If you're serious about this statement, you need to close your Fark account, throw your computer in the trash, and never, ever go on the Internet again.

I forgot. The first Godfather film did, in fact, cover the immigration of Vito from Italy to the US along with why anybody gave shiat about Vito in the first place*. You are so right! Consider me gone from the land of "pretended to read the book but only cares to watch the movie" group of an aggregate site.

You must have a very proud mother!

* Seriously, the final chapter of the book is far more hard hitting than the final scene in the film

wiredroach:DeArmondVI: wiredroach: DeArmondVI: Subby, it is fine when the kreator of a work of art makes a decision on said piece of art. Given that it wasn't a studio decision or a publisher decision, I am of the opnion that the author wishes to do more with the world and concepts that he created.

Have a ball being a whiny biatch. Try coming up with the next "Fight Club" yourself rather than cry about the person who inspired your entire adolescent outlook on life wanting to expand on the story that he created.

Wah farkin wah, subs

The Star Wars prequels. You lose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Chuck capitalize as much as George did on merchandise and licensing rights (or even attempt to)? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Chuck is an author (by profession) and George is a filmaker. Gee, I wonder if there could be any difference between those two outlooks on art...

Hint: one has only cared about money while the other knows he has enough money to make whatever choices he wants to make as an artist.

Ever read Snuff or Haunted? Would George Lucas ever have written those?

Lucas didn't always care about money. THX-1138 sure wasn't a blockbuster and wasn't intended to be, and American Graffiti was his love letter to his youth. It was a hit against all odds. Even Star Wars was a good bet to be a flop. But for a lot of artists, there comes a time when it's time to just let go.

And I'm not sure why you think filmmakers are all moneygrubbers and authors are unsullied by the allure of cash. Plenty of writers have crapped out garbage to make a buck.

Sure. Chuck P is totes the same as Janet Evanovich, James Patterson, Nora Roberts, and Nicholas Sparks. I was so wrong for thinking that there was some sort of difference between all of them "book people."

I submit defeat to your brilliant logic. Fight Club will always be what you have wanted it to be. The kreator has no bearing whatsoever on its future and you, you alone, hold the key to keeping its message pure.

DeArmondVI:I forgot. The first Godfather film did, in fact, cover the immigration of Vito from Italy to the US along with why anybody gave shiat about Vito in the first place*. You are so right! Consider me gone from the land of "pretended to read the book but only cares to watch the movie" group of an aggregate site.

I guess all the time the book spent describing Sonny's schlong and detailing such crucial characters as Lucy Mancini and Johnny Fontaine is what makes it a pillar of the Western canon of literature.

The book was an entertaining, readable, so-so pulp novel. The film is probably one of the top five movies ever made-and its sequel is one of the others. You don't know what you're talking about, or you're a troll with mad skills.

DeArmondVI:wiredroach: DeArmondVI: Actually, the book was so much better than the movie that it took a second movie to actually cover what was in the book.

If you're serious about this statement, you need to close your Fark account, throw your computer in the trash, and never, ever go on the Internet again.

I forgot. The first Godfather film did, in fact, cover the immigration of Vito from Italy to the US along with why anybody gave shiat about Vito in the first place*. You are so right! Consider me gone from the land of "pretended to read the book but only cares to watch the movie" group of an aggregate site.

You must have a very proud mother!

* Seriously, the final chapter of the book is far more hard hitting than the final scene in the film

Sorry, but the films vastly improved over the books. Aside from the immigration, too much of the book dealt with establishing Luca Brasi as a Reservoir Dogs stand-in and 80 pages of Sonny's mistress getting her cooch rebuilt.

wiredroach:DeArmondVI: I forgot. The first Godfather film did, in fact, cover the immigration of Vito from Italy to the US along with why anybody gave shiat about Vito in the first place*. You are so right! Consider me gone from the land of "pretended to read the book but only cares to watch the movie" group of an aggregate site.

I guess all the time the book spent describing Sonny's schlong and detailing such crucial characters as Lucy Mancini and Johnny Fontaine is what makes it a pillar of the Western canon of literature.

The book was an entertaining, readable, so-so pulp novel. The film is probably one of the top five movies ever made-and its sequel is one of the others. You don't know what you're talking about, or you're a troll with mad skills.

Since Puzo was, you know, kinda involved in the scripts of all three movies, I will assume that you care more about what you can see in three hours over what can be read in six. I enjoy the two flicks based off of the single novel, and I hold no grudge about their place in American cinematic canon. It just kind of amazes me that you think that there is more to be gained from watching a flick than reading a book.

IMHO the best thing about the movie is that it brought people to read the book. Which, of course, gave so much more background and insight into such well developed characters than three films were able to do.

DeArmondVI:you think that there is more to be gained from watching a flick than reading a book.

I don't know why you assume I think that films are more valuable than books. But I will say this: there's more to be gained from watching a film than reading a book if the film's a masterpiece and the book is just average. That's my entire point. As a novel The Godfather isn't Blood Meridian. It's not a great work of art. It's a decent bit of pop culture entertainment. But the film is an artistic achievement that's the equivalent of a better painting by Picasso or a Beethoven symphony. And it's about a hundred times more entertaining, thought-provoking, and artistically refined than the book it's based on.

Just because there's more stuff in the book doesn't make it better than the film.

wiredroach:DeArmondVI: you think that there is more to be gained from watching a flick than reading a book.

I don't know why you assume I think that films are more valuable than books. But I will say this: there's more to be gained from watching a film than reading a book if the film's a masterpiece and the book is just average. That's my entire point. As a novel The Godfather isn't Blood Meridian. It's not a great work of art. It's a decent bit of pop culture entertainment. But the film is an artistic achievement that's the equivalent of a better painting by Picasso or a Beethoven symphony. And it's about a hundred times more entertaining, thought-provoking, and artistically refined than the book it's based on.

Just because there's more stuff in the book doesn't make it better than the film.

For that, I will concede. I still disagree, but you're not a schmuck. Since I make my living on books being sold, I have a natural prejudice towards wanting people to read books. I fully accept the Godfather's place in the pantheon of American cinema. FWIW, Puzo was more than a rubber stamp for his IP.

Regarding "Fight Club," the fact that it is the author who wants to push the story forward, even though Palahniuk has no problems earning cash via his other novels in the past fifteen years or so, leads me to think that perhaps he actually wants to explore and produce more of that world. There's a difference between pusing an idea and being commissioned to create such.

I'll still defend the idea that "yeah, Puzo's novel was better than the two films based on it." Hopefully, you can recognize that one's imagniation is far more powerfull than anything a director can attempt to canonize.